|
Then consider this god [in man] whom we cannot think to be
absent at some point and present at another. All that have
insight into the nature of the divine beings hold the
omnipresence of this god and of all the gods, and reason assures
us that so it must be.
Now all-pervasion is inconsistent with partition; that would mean
no longer the god throughout but part of the god at one point and
part at another; the god ceases to be one god, just as a mass cut
up ceases to be a mass, the parts no longer giving the first
total. Further, the god becomes corporeal.
If all this is impossible, the disputed doctrine presents itself
again; holding the god to pervade the Being of man, we hold the
omnipresence of an integral identity.
Again, if we think of the divine nature as infinite- and
certainly it is confined by no bounds- this must mean that it
nowhere fails; its presence must reach to everything; at the
point to which it does not reach, there it has failed; something
exists in which it is not.
Now, admitting any sequent to the absolute unity, that sequent
must be bound up with the absolute; any third will be about that
second and move towards it, linked to it as its offspring. In
this way all participants in the Later will have share in the
First. The Beings of the Intellectual are thus a plurality of
firsts and seconds and thirds attached like one sphere to one
centre, not separated by interval but mutually present; where,
therefore, the Intellectual tertiaries are present, the
secondaries and firsts are present too.
|
|